Meiji Restoration

In 1868 the Tokugawa shôgun ("great general"), who ruled Japan in the feudal period, lost his power and the emperor was restored to the supreme position. The emperor took the name Meiji ("enlightened rule") as his reign name; this event was known as the Meiji Restoration.

The Meiji Restoration (明治維新 Meiji Ishin?),was a chain of events that restored practical imperial rule to Japan in 1868 under Emperor Meiji. Meiji rulers restored the power to the Emperor Meiji who was considered a descendant of the sun goddess Amaterasu at that time.  Although there were Emperors before Meiji Restoration, the events restored practical abilities and consolidated the political system under the Emperor of Japan.

• The Reign of the Meiji Emperor

When the Meiji emperor was restored as head of Japan in 1868, the nation was a militarily weak country, was primarily agricultural, and had little technological development. It was controlled by hundreds of semi-independent feudal lords. The Western powers — Europe and the United States — had forced Japan to sign treaties that limited its control over its own foreign trade and required that crimes concerning foreigners in Japan be tried not in Japanese but in Western courts. When the Meiji period ended, with the death of the emperor in 1912, Japan had

        · a highly centralized, bureaucratic government
        · a constitution establishing an elected parliament
        · a well-developed transport and communication system
        · a highly educated population free of feudal class restrictions
        · an established and rapidly growing industrial sector based on the latest technology and
        · a powerful army and navy.

Japan had regained complete control of its foreign trade and legal system, and, by fighting and winning two wars (one of them against a major European power, Russia), it had established full independence and equality in international affairs. In a little more than a generation, Japan had exceeded its goals, and in the process had changed its whole society. Japan's success in modernization has created great interest in why and how it was able to adopt Western political, social, and economic institutions in so short a time.

One answer is found in the Meiji Restoration itself. This political revolution "restored" the emperor to power, but he did not rule directly. He was expected to accept the advice of the group that had overthrown the shôgun, and it was from this group that a small number of ambitious, able, and patriotic young men from the lower ranks of the samurai emerged to take control and establish the new political system. At first, their only strength was that the emperor accepted their advice and several powerful feudal domains provided military support. They moved quickly, however, to build their own military and economic control. By July 1869 the feudal lords had been requested to give up their domains, and in 1871 these domains were abolished and transformed into prefectures of a unified central state.

The feudal lords and the samurai class were offered a yearly stipend, which was later changed to a one-time payment in government bonds. The samurai lost their class privileges, when the government declared all classes to be equal. By 1876 the government banned the wearing of the samurai's swords; the former samurai cut off their top knots in favor of Western-style haircuts and took up jobs in business and the professions.

The armies of each domain were disbanded, and a national army based on universal conscription was created in 1872, requiring three years' military service from all men, samurai and commoner alike. A national land tax system was established that required payment in money instead of rice, which allowed the government to stabilize the national budget. This gave the government money to spend to build up the strength of the nation.

• Resistance and Rebellion Defeated

Although these changes were made in the name of the emperor and national defense, the loss of privileges brought some resentment and rebellion. When the top leadership left to travel in Europe and the United States to study Western ways in 1872, conservative groups argued that Japan should reply to Korean's refusal to revise a centuries old treaty with an invasion. This would help patriotic samurai to regain their importance. But the new leaders quickly returned from Europe and reestablished their control, arguing that Japan should concentrate on its own modernization and not engage in such foreign adventures.

For the next twenty years, in the 1870s and 1880s, the top priority remained domestic reform aimed at changing Japan's social and economic institutions along the lines of the model provided by the powerful Western nations. The final blow to conservative samurai came in the 1877 Satsuma rebellion, when the government's newly drafted army, trained in European infantry techniques and armed with modern Western guns, defeated the last resistance of the traditional samurai warriors. With the exception of these few samurai outbreaks, Japan's domestic transformation proceeded with remarkable speed, energy, and the cooperation of the people. This phenomenon is one of the major characteristics of Japan's modern history.

• Ideology

In an effort to unite the Japanese nation in response to the Western challenge, the Meiji leaders created a civic ideology centered around the emperor. Although the emperor wielded no political power, he had long been viewed as a symbol of Japanese culture and historical continuity. He was the head of the Shintô religion, Japan's native religion. Among other beliefs, Shintô holds that the emperor is descended from the sun goddess and the gods who created Japan and therefore is semidivine. Westerners of that time knew him primarily as a ceremonial figure. The Meiji reformers brought the emperor and Shintô to national prominence, replacing Buddhism as the national religion, for political and ideological reasons. By associating Shintô with the imperial line, which reached back into legendary times, Japan had not only the oldest ruling house in the world, but a powerful symbol of age-old national unity.

The people seldom saw the emperor, yet they were to carry out his orders without question, in honor to him and to the unity of the Japanese people, which he represented. In fact, the emperor did not rule. It was his "advisers," the small group of men who exercised political control, that devised and carried out the reform program in the name of the emperor.

• Social and Economic Changes

The abolition of feudalism made possible tremendous social and political changes. Millions of people were suddenly free to choose their occupation and move about without restrictions. By providing a new environment of political and financial security, the government made possible investment in new industries and technologies.

The government led the way in this, building railway and shipping lines, telegraph and telephone systems, three shipyards, ten mines, five munitions works, and fifty-three consumer industries (making sugar, glass, textiles, cement, chemicals, and other important products). This was very expensive, however, and strained government finances, so in 1880 the government decided to sell most of these industries to private investors, thereafter encouraging such activity through subsidies and other incentives. Some of the samurai and merchants who built these industries established major corporate conglomerates called zaibatsu, which controlled much of Japan's modern industrial sector.

The government also introduced a national educational system and a constitution, creating an elected parliament called the Diet. They did this to provide a good environment for national growth, win the respect of the Westerners, and build support for the modern state. In the Tokugawa period, popular education had spread rapidly, and in 1872 the government established a national system to educate the entire population. By the end of the Meiji period, almost everyone attended the free public schools for at least six years. The government closely controlled the schools, making sure that in addition to skills like mathematics and reading, all students studied "moral training," which stressed the importance of their duty to the emperor, the country and their families.

The 1889 constitution was "given" to the people by the emperor, and only he (or his advisers) could change it. A parliament was elected beginning in 1890, but only the wealthiest one percent of the population could vote in elections. In 1925 this was changed to allow all men (but not yet women) to vote.

To win the recognition of the Western powers and convince them to change the unequal treaties the Japanese had been forced to sign in the 1850s, Japan changed its entire legal system, adopting a new criminal and civil code modeled after those of France and Germany. The Western nations finally agreed to revise the treaties in 1894, acknowledging Japan as an equal in principle, although not in international power.

• The International Climate: Colonialism and Expansion

In 1894 Japan fought a war against China over its interest in Korea, which China claimed as a vassal state. The Korean peninsula is the closest part of Asia to Japan, less than 100 miles by sea, and the Japanese were worried that the Russians might gain control of that weak nation. Japan won the war and gained control over Korea and gained Taiwan as a colony. Japan's sudden, decisive victory over China surprised the world and worried some European powers.

At this time the European nations were beginning to claim special rights in China — the French, with their colony in Indochina (today's Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia), were involved in South China; the British also claimed special rights in South China, near Hong Kong, and later the whole Yangtze valley; and the Russians, who were building a railway through Siberia and Manchuria, were interested in North China. After Japan's victory over China, Japan signed a treaty with China which gave Japan special rights on China's Liaotung peninsula, in addition to the control of Taiwan. But Japan's victory was short lived. Within a week, France, Russia, and Germany combined to pressure Japan to give up rights on the Liaotung peninsula. Each of these nations then began to force China to give it ports, naval bases, and special economic rights, with Russia taking the same Liaotung peninsula that Japan had been forced to return.

The Japanese government was angered by this incident and drew the lesson that for Japan to maintain its independence and receive equal treatment in international affairs, it was necessary to strengthen its military even further. By 1904, when the Russians were again threatening to establish control over Korea, Japan was much stronger. It declared war on Russia and, using all its strength, won victory in 1905 (beginning with a surprise naval attack on Port Arthur, which gained for Japan the control of the China Sea). Japan thus achieved dominance over Korea and established itself a colonial power in East Asia.

• The Period 1912-1941

The Meiji reforms brought great changes both within Japan and in Japan's place in world affairs. Japan strengthened itself enough to remain a sovereign nation in the face of Western colonizing powers and indeed became a colonizing power itself. During the Taishô period (1912-1926), Japanese citizens began to ask for more voice in the government and for more social freedoms. During this time, Japanese society and the Japanese political system were significantly more open than they were either before or after. The period has often been called the period of "Taishô democracy." One explanation is that, until World War I, Japan enjoyed record breaking economic prosperity. The Japanese people had more money to spend, more leisure, and better education, supplemented by the development of mass media. Increasingly they lived in cities where they came into contact with influences from abroad and where the traditional authority of the extended family was less influential. Industrialization in itself undermined traditional values, emphasizing instead efficiency, independence, materialism, and individualism. During these years Japan saw the emergence of a "mass society" very similar to the "Roaring 20s" in the United States. During these years also, the Japanese people began to demand universal manhood suffrage which they won in 1925. Political parties increased their influence, becoming powerful enough to appoint their own prime ministers between 1918 and 1931.

At the end of World War I, however, Japan entered a severe economic depression. The bright, optimistic atmosphere of the Taishô period gradually disappeared. Political party government was marred by corruption. The government and military, consequently, grew stronger, the parliament weaker. The advanced industrial sector became increasingly controlled by a few giant businesses, the zaibatsu. Moreover, Japan's international relations were disrupted by trade tensions and by growing international disapproval of Japan's activities in China. But success in competing with the European powers in East Asia strengthened the idea that Japan could, and should, further expand its influence on the Asian mainland by military force.


Japan's need for natural resources and the repeated rebuffs from the West to Japan's attempts to expand its power in Asia paved the way for militarists to rise to power. Insecurity in international relations allowed a right-wing militaristic faction to control first foreign, then domestic, policy. With the military greatly influencing the government, Japan began an aggressive military campaign throughout Asia, and then, in 1941, bombed Pearl Harbor.

Summary

The most important feature of the Meiji period was Japan's struggle for recognition of its considerable achievement and for equality with Western nations. Japan was highly successful in organizing an industrial, capitalist state on Western models. But when Japan also began to apply the lessons it learned from European imperialism, the West reacted negatively. In a sense Japan's chief handicap was that it entered into the Western dominated world order at a late stage. Colonialism and the racist ideology that accompanied it, were too entrenched in Western countries to allow an "upstart," nonwhite nation to enter the race for natural resources and markets as an equal. Many of the misunderstandings between the West and Japan stemmed from Japan's sense of alienation from the West, which seemed to use a different standard in dealing with European nations than it did with a rising Asian power like Japan.

American Revolution

The American Revolution was a political upheaval that took place between 1765 and 1783 during which colonists in the Thirteen American Colonies rejected the British monarchy and aristocracy, overthrew the authority of Great Britain, and founded the United States of America.

Starting in 1765, members of American colonial society rejected the authority of the British Parliament to tax them without colonial representatives in the government. During the following decade, protests by colonists—known as Patriots—continued to escalate, as in the Boston Tea Party in 1773 during which patriots destroyed a consignment of taxed tea from the Parliament-controlled and favored East India Company.The British responded by imposing punitive laws—the Coercive Acts—on Massachusetts in 1774, following which Patriots in the other colonies rallied behind Massachusetts. In late 1774 the Patriots set up their own alternative government to better coordinate their resistance efforts against Great Britain, while other colonists, known as Loyalists, preferred to remain aligned to the British Crown.

Tensions escalated to the outbreak of fighting between Patriot militia and British regulars atLexington and Concord in April 1775. The conflict then evolved into a global war, during which the Patriots (and later their French, Spanish, and Dutch allies) fought the British and Loyalists in what became known as the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783). Patriots in each of the thirteen colonies formed a Provincial Congress that assumed power from the old colonial governments and suppressed Loyalism, and from there built a Continental Army under the leadership of General George Washington. Claiming King George III's rule to be tyrannical and infringing the colonists' "rights as Englishmen", the Continental Congress declared the colonies free and independent states in July 1776. The Patriot leadership professed the political philosophies of liberalism and republicanism to reject monarchy and aristocracy, and proclaimed that all men are created equal. Congress rejected British proposals requiring allegiance to the monarchy and abandonment of independence.

The British were forced out of Boston in 1776, but then captured and held New York City for the duration of the war. The British blockaded the ports and captured other cities for brief periods, but failed to defeat Washington's forces. In early 1778, following a failed patriot invasion of Canada, a British army was captured at the Battle of Saratoga, following which the French openly entered the war as allies of the United States. The war later turned to the American South, where the British captured an army at South Carolina, but failed to enlist enough volunteers from Loyalist civilians to take effective control. A combined American–French force captured a second British army at Yorktown in 1781, effectively ending the war in the United States. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 formally ended the conflict, confirming the new nation's complete separation from the British Empire. The United States took possession of nearly all the territory east of the Mississippi River and south of the Great Lakes, with the British retaining control of Canada and Spain taking Florida.

Among the significant results of the revolution was the creation of a new Constitution of the United States. The 'Three-Fifths Compromise' allowed the southern slaveholders to consolidate power and maintain slavery in America for another eighty years,but through the expansion of voting rights and liberties over subsequent decades the elected government became responsible to the will of the people.The new Constitution established a relatively strong federalnational government that included an executive, national judiciary, a bicameral Congress that represented both states in the Senate and population in theHouse of Representatives.

The Glorious Revolution

The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England (James VII of Scotland and James II of Ireland) by a union of English Parliamentarians with the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange). William's successful invasion of England with a Dutch fleet and army led to his ascending of the English throne as William III of England jointly with his wife Mary II of England, in conjunction with the documentation of the Bill of Rights 1689.

King James's policies of religious tolerance after 1685 met with increasing opposition by members of leading political circles, who were troubled by the king's Catholicism and his close ties with France. The crisis facing the king came to a head in 1688, with the birth of the King's son, James Francis Edward Stuart, on 10 June (Julian calendar). This changed the existing line of succession by displacing the heir presumptive, his daughter Mary, a Protestant and the wife of William of Orange, with young James as heir apparent. The establishment of a Roman Catholic dynasty in the kingdoms now seemed likely. Some of the most influential leaders of the Tories united with members of the opposition Whigs and set out to resolve the crisis by inviting William of Orange to England, which the stadtholder, who feared an Anglo-French alliance, had indicated as a condition for a military intervention.

After consolidating political and financial support, William crossed the North Sea and English Channel with a large invasion fleet in November 1688, landing at Torbay. After only two minor clashes between the two opposing armies in England, and anti-Catholic riots in several towns, James's regime collapsed, largely because of a lack of resolve shown by the king. However, this was followed by the protracted Williamite War in Ireland and Dundee's rising in Scotland. In England's distant American colonies, the revolution led to the collapse of the Dominion of New England and the overthrow of the Province of Maryland's government. Following a defeat of his forces at the Battle of Reading on 9 December, James and his wife fled England; James, however, returned to London for a two-week period that culminated in his final departure for France on 23 December. By threatening to withdraw his troops, William in February 1689 convinced a newly chosen Convention Parliament to make him and his wife joint monarchs.

The Revolution permanently ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England. For British Catholics its effects were disastrous both socially and politically: Catholics were denied the right to vote and sit in the Westminster Parliament for over a century; they were also denied commissions in the army, and the monarch was forbidden to be Catholic or to marry a Catholic, this latter prohibition remaining in force until the UK's Succession to the Crown Act 2013 removed it in 2015. The Revolution led to limited toleration for Nonconformist Protestants, although it would be some time before they had full political rights. It has been argued, mainly by Whig historians, that James's overthrow began modern English parliamentary democracy: the Bill of Rights 1689 has become one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain and never since has the monarch held absolute power.

Internationally, the Revolution was related to the War of the Grand Alliance on mainland Europe. It has been seen as the last successful invasion of England.It ended all attempts by England in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century to subdue the Dutch Republic by military force. However, the resulting economic integration and military co-operation between the English and Dutch navies shifted the dominance in world trade from the Dutch Republic to England and later to Great Britain.

The expression "Glorious Revolution" was first used by John Hampden in late 1689,and is an expression that is still used by the British Parliament.The Glorious Revolution is also occasionally termed the Bloodless Revolution, albeit inaccurately. The English Civil War (also known as the Great Rebellion) was still within living memory for most of the major English participants in the events of 1688, and for them, in comparison to that war (or even the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685) the deaths in the conflict of 1688 were mercifully few.

• Background

During his three-year reign, King James II became directly involved in the political battles in England between Catholicism and Protestantism, and between the Divine Right of Kings and the political rights of the Parliament of England. James's greatest political problem was his Catholicism, which left him alienated from both parties in England. The low church Whigs had failed in their attempt to pass the Exclusion Bill to exclude James from the throne between 1679 and 1681, and James's supporters were the high church Anglican Tories. In Scotland, his supporters in the Parliament of Scotland increased attempts to force the Covenanters to renounce their faith and accept episcopalian rule of the church by the monarch.

When James inherited the English throne in 1685, he had much support in the 'Loyal Parliament', which was composed mostly of Tories. His Catholicism was of concern to many, but the fact that he had no son, and his daughters were Protestants, was a "saving grace". James's attempt to relax the Penal Laws alienated his natural supporters, however, because the Tories viewed this as tantamount to disestablishment of the Church of England. Abandoning the Tories, James looked to form a 'King's party' as a counterweight to the Anglican Tories, so in 1687 James supported the policy of religious toleration and issued the Declaration of Indulgence. The majority of Irish people backed James II for this reason and also because of his promise to the Irish Parliament of a greater future autonomy.By allying himself with the Catholics, Dissenters, and Nonconformists, James hoped to build a coalition that would advance Catholic emancipation.

In May 1686, James decided to obtain from the English courts of the common law a ruling that affirmed his power to dispense with Acts of Parliament. He dismissed judges who disagreed with him on this matter as well as the Solicitor General Heneage Finch. Eleven out of the twelve judges ruled in favour of dispensing power.When Henry Compton, the Bishop of London, did not ban John Sharp from preaching after he gave an anti-Catholic sermon, James ordered his removal.

In April 1687, James ordered the fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford to elect a Catholic, Anthony Farmer, as their president. The fellows believed Farmer ineligible under the college's statutes and so elected John Hough instead. The college statutes required them to fill the vacancy within a certain time and so could not wait for a further royal nomination. James refused to view Hough's election as valid and told the fellows to elect the Bishop of Oxford. James responded by sending some ecclesiastical commissioners to hold a visitation and install him as president. The fellows then agreed to the Bishop of Oxford as their president but James required that they admit they had been in the wrong and ask for his pardon. When they refused most of the fellows were ejected and replaced by Catholics.

In 1687, James prepared to pack Parliament with his supporters so that it would repeal the Test Act and the penal laws. James was convinced by addresses from Dissenters that he had their support and so could dispense with relying on Tories and Anglicans. James instituted a wholesale purge of those in offices under the crown opposed to James's plan.In August the lieutenancy was remodelled and in September over one thousand members of the city livery companies were ejected. In October James gave orders for the lords lieutenants in the provinces to provide three standard questions to all members of the Commission of the peace: would they consent to the repeal of the Test Act and the penal laws; would they assist candidates who would do so; and they were requested to accept the Declaration of Indulgence. In December it was announced that all the offices of deputy lieutenants and Justices of the Peace would be revised. Therefore, during the first three months of 1688, hundreds of those asked the three questions who gave hostile replies were dismissed. More far-reaching purges were applied to the towns: in November a regulating committee was founded to operate the purges.Corporations were purged by agents given wide discretionary powers in an attempt to create a permanent royal electoral machine. Finally, on 24 August 1688,James ordered writs to be issued for a general election.

James also created a large standing army and employed Catholics in positions of power within it. To his opponents in Parliament this seemed like a prelude to arbitrary rule, so James prorogued Parliament without gaining Parliament's consent. At this time, the English regiments of the army were encamped at Hounslow, near the capital. It was feared that the location was intended to overawe the City.The army in Ireland was purged of Protestants, who were replaced with Catholics, and by 1688 James had more than 34,000 men under arms in his three kingdoms.

In April 1688, James re-issued the Declaration of Indulgence and ordered all clergymen to read it in their churches. When the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft, and six other bishops (the Seven Bishops) wrote to James asking him to reconsider his policies, they were arrested on charges of seditious libel, but at trial they were acquitted to the cheers of the London crowd.

Matters came to a head in June 1688, when the King had a son, James; until then, the throne would have passed to his daughter, Mary, a Protestant. The prospect of a Catholic dynasty in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland was now likely.

Overthrow of the Roman monarchy

The Overthrow of the Roman monarchy was a political revolution in ancient Rome in around 509 BC, which resulted in the expulsion of the last king of Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, and the establishment of the Roman Republic.

The Roman histories tell that while the king was away on campaign, his son Sextus Tarquinius raped a noblewoman Lucretia. Afterwards, she revealed the offence to various Roman noblemen, and then committed suicide. The Roman noblemen, led by Lucius Junius Brutus, obtained the support of the Roman aristocracy and the people to expel the king and his family and to institute a republic. The Roman army supported Brutus, and the king went into exile. Despite a number of attempts by Lucius Tarquinius Superbus to reinstate the monarchy, the republic was established and two consuls were elected annually to rule the city.

• Background: The Kingdom

Roman history held that seven kings of Rome reigned from the establishment of the city in 753 BC by Romulus up to the reign of Tarquinius. The accuracy of this account has been doubted by modern historians, although it appears to be accepted that there was a monarchy, and the last king Tarquinius was expelled upon the founding of the republic in the late 6th century BC.

Tarquinius was the son of the fifth king, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus. In around 535 BC Tarquinius, together with his wife Tullia Minor (one of the daughters of the then king Servius Tullius) arranged the murder of Servius, and Tarquinius became king in his place.

Despite various military victories, Tarquinius became an unpopular king. He refused to bury his predecessor, then put to death a number of the leading senators whom he suspected of remaining loyal to Servius (one of whom was the brother of Lucius Junius Brutus). By not replacing the slain senators, and not consulting the Senate on all matters of government, he diminished both the size and authority of the Senate. In another break with tradition, he judged capital criminal cases without advice of counsellors, thereby creating fear among those who might think to oppose him. He also engaged in treachery with the Latin allies.

• Establishment of the republic

That uprising resulted in the exile or Regifugium, after a reign of 25 years, of Tarquinius and his family, and the establishment of the Roman Republic, with Brutus and Collatinus (both related by blood to Rome's fifth king Lucius Tarquinius Priscus) as the first consuls.

Tarquinius and his two eldest sons, Titus and Arruns, went into exile at Caere.

According to Livy, Brutus' first act after the expulsion of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was to bring the people to swear an oath never to allow any man again to be king in Rome.

Omnium primum avidum novae libertatis populum, ne postmodum flecti precibus aut donis regiis posset, iure iurando adegit neminem Romae passuros regnare.

First of all, by swearing an oath that they would suffer no man to rule Rome, it forced the people, desirous of a new liberty, not to be thereafter swayed by the entreaties or bribes of kings.

This is, fundamentally, a restatement of the 'private oath' sworn by the conspirators to overthrow the monarchy:

Per hunc... castissimum ante regiam iniuriam sanguinem iuro, vosque, di, testes facio me L. Tarquinium Superbum cum scelerata coniuge et omni liberorum stirpe ferro igni quacumque dehinc vi possim exsecuturum, nec illos nec alium quemquam regnare Romae passurum.

By this guiltless blood before the kingly injustice I swear – you and the gods as my witnesses – I make myself the one who will prosecute, by what force I am able, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus along with his wicked wife and the whole house of his freeborn children by sword, by fire, by any means hence, so that neither they nor anyone else be suffered to rule Rome.

There is no scholarly agreement that the oath took place; it is reported, although differently, by Plutarch (Poplicola, 2) and Appian (B.C. 2.119).

Brutus also replenished the number of senators to 300 from the principal men of the equites. The new consuls also created a new office of rex sacrorum to carry out the religious duties that had previously been performed by the kings.

Because of the Roman people's revulsion at the name and family of the exiled king, the consul Tarquinius Collatinus was forced to resign from the office of consul and go into exile.

• Attempts to reinstate the monarchy

After his exile, Tarquinius made a number of attempts to regain the throne. At first, he sent ambassadors to the Senate to request the return of his family's personal effects, which had been seized in the coup. In secret, while the Senate debated his request, the ambassadors met with and subverted a number of the leading men of Rome to the royal cause, in the Tarquinian conspiracy. The conspirators included two of Brutus' brothers-in-law, and his two sons Titus and Tiberius. The conspiracy was discovered, and the conspirators executed.

Although the Senate had initially agreed to Tarquin's request for a return of his family's effects, the decision was reconsidered and revoked after the discovery of the conspiracy, and the royal property was given over to be plundered by the Roman populace.

Tarquinius next attempted to regain Rome by force of arms. He first gained the support of the cities of Veii and Tarquinii, recalling to the former their regular losses of war and land to the Roman state, and to the latter his family ties. The armies of the two cities were led by Tarquinius against Rome in the Battle of Silva Arsia. The king commanded the Etruscan infantry. Although the result initially appeared uncertain, the Romans were victorious. Both Brutus (the consul) and Arruns (the king's son) were killed in battle.

Another attempt by Tarquinius relied on military support from Lars Porsenna, king of Clusium. The war led to the siege of Rome, and finally a peace treaty. However, Tarquinius failed to achieve his aim of regaining the throne.

Tarquinius and his family left Clusium, and instead sought refuge in Tusculum with his son-in-law Octavius Mamilius. In about 496 BC, Tarquin and his son Titus fought with Mamilius and the Latin League against Rome, but lost, at the Battle of Lake Regillus at which Mamilius perished.

Subsequently, Tarquinius fled to take refuge with the tyrant of Cumae, Aristodemus and Tarquin died there in 495 BC. 

Pepi II, Last ruler of the 6th Dynasty and Egypt's Old Kingdom

According to tradition, Pepi II was the last ruler of Egypt's 6th Dynasty, and in fact the last significant ruler of the Old Kingdom prior to the onset of what Egyptologists call the Fist Intermediate Period. We are told that his reign of possibly 94 (some Egyptologist believe 64) years was the longest in ancient Egyptian history. He seems to have come to the throne at about the age of six, and would therefore have lived until the age of one hundred. However, because of the onset of the First Intermediate Period, the latter part of his reign was probably ineffectual, perhaps at least somewhat due to his advanced age.Both the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt and Peter A. Clayton, have his reign lasting from 2278 until 2184 BC.

The pharaoh's birth name was Pepi, (also Pepy, Phiops or Fiops) as was his father's. His throne name was Neferkare, which means "Beautiful is the Soul of Re" His mother was Ankhnesmerire II (Ankhesenpepi), who was the sister of his older brother, Merenre and probably acted as Pepi II's regent during his youth. She may have probably been assisted by her brother, Djau, who was a vizier. There is a well known statue of her holding Pepi II as a young boy. However, after Pepi I's death, she seems to have married Merenre. He had a number of wives. These included Neith, the daughter of Pepi I and Ankenesmerire I and Ipwet (Iput II), the daughter of his brother Merenre. There is some confusion here, because we are told that he also married Ankenesmerire III, who was another daughter of Merenre, possibly by his mother Ankhenesmerire II. A final wife that we know of was Udjebten (or Wedjebten). He probably had at least one son named for his brother, Merenre.

We know that Pepi II continued foreign relations in a very similar manner to both his predecessors of the 5th and 6th Dynasties and even developed new links with southern Africa. He maintained diplomatic and commercial relations with Byblos in ancient Syria/Palestine. However, we also learn of an incident where Pepi had to send Pepynakht (Heqaib) to bring back the body of an official who was killed on a mission in the area of Byblos.

In Nubia, Pepi sought a policy of pacification. We know of several trips and campaigns made south into Nubia both by Harkhuf, and his successor, Pepynakht. In fact, these powerful local governors managed to control Nubia long after the death of Pepi II form their base in Elephantine (near modern Aswan)

Pepi II appears to have been fascinated with some of these travels, particularly by his fathers old retainer, Harkhuf, governor of Aswan. One interesting account concerns a pygmy secured by Harkhuf on one of his African adventures. When Pepi II learned of this he wrote Harkhuf a letter that Harkhuf later incorporated into his funerary autobiography:

You have said...that you have brought a pygmy of the god's dances from the land of the horizon-dwellers, like the pygmy whom the god's seal-bearer Bawerded brought from Punt in the time of King Isesi. You have said to my majesty that his like has never been brought by anyone who went to Yam previously...Come north to the residence at once! Hurry and bring with you this pygmy whom you brought from the land of the horizon-dwellers live, hail and healthy, for the dances of the god, to gladden the heart, to delight the heart of King Neferkare who lives forever! When he goes down with you into the ship, get worthy men to be around him on deck, least he fall into the water! When he lies down at night, get worthy men to lie around him in his tent. Inspect ten times at night! My majesty desires to see this pygmy more than the gifts of the mine-land and of Punt! When you arrive at the residence and this pygmy is with you live, hale and healthy, my majesty will do great things for you, more than was done for the god's seal-bearer. Bawerded in the time of King Isesi.

He also continued long established mining practices. We know from an inscription that turquoise and copper continued to be mined at Wadi Maghara in the Sinai. Alasbaster was quarried at Hatnub and Greywacke and siltsone from Wadi Hammamat.

However, some information we have from some scenes attributable to Pepi II may be ritualistic. For example, one scene depicting the submission of Libyan chiefs during his reign is a close copy of representations in the mortuary temples ofSahura, Niuserra and Pepi I. Some Egyptologists believe that such scenes are more symbolic expressions of the achievements of the ideal king and bore little resemblance to the reality.

Calcite lid of a vessel.

Some would have us believe that the First Intermediate Period, a time of decline in Egyptian power, was bought on by low inundation of the Nile and crop failure. This is mostly because they believe Pepi II's mortuary complex was built and decorated in a much poorer manner then his predecessors. It his possible that this may have been a contributing factor. However, during Pepi II's reign, we find increasing evidence of the power and wealth of high officials in Egypt, with decentralization of control away from the capital, Memphis. These nobles built huge, elaborate tombs at Cause, Akhmin,Abydos, Edfu and Elephantine, and it is clear that their wealth enhanced their status to the detriment of the king's. Because the positions of these officials was now hereditary, they now owned considerable land which was passed from father to son. Therefore, their allegiance and loyalty to the throne became very casual as their wealth gave them independence from the king. Administration of the country became difficult and so it was Pepi II who divided the position of vizier so that now there was a vizier of Upper Egypt and another of Lower Egypt. Yet the power of these local rulers continued to flourish as the king grew ever older, and probably less of an able ruler.

Foreign relations, particularly concerning Nubia, were also a drain on Pepi II' treasury. In fact, in the latter part of Pepi II's rule, some foreign relations were actually broken off. Hence, we see that towards the end of his reign, the government of Egypt simply unraveled.

A relief fragment from Koptos

Long reigns have proven to create succession problems. As powerful as Ramesses II was, his successors likewise had problems because of their advanced age when they themselves ascended to the throne. Hence, we find that Pepi II may have been succeeded by a son, Merenre II, but perhaps for only one year. According to Manetho, he was married to a Queen Nitocris, who succeeded her husband to become the last ruler of the 6th Dynasty. However, very little archaeological evidence of Merenre II or Nitocris exists. Merenre II's mother would have probably been Neith. After Pepi II, the marvelous building projects ceased almost entirely until the reign of Mentuhotep II of the 11th Dynasty.

A temple at Abydos may have been a ka-chapel built by Pepi II. His pyramid and mortuary complex are located in South Saqqara. Most (if not all) of his wife's smaller pyramids have been discovered nearby.

Pepi II is further attested to by a Calcite statuette of the young king and his mother, now in the Brooklyn Museum of Art, a decree of the king found at the mortuary temple of Menkawre, a decree found at Abydos, and three decrees at Koptos (Coptos). One inscription, now in Cairo, records his Sed festival and another inscription is has been found in Iput II's mortuary temple. The king was further mentioned in the biography of Djau (now in Cairo) in his tomb in Abydos and is mentioned in the tomb of Ibi at Deir el-Gabrawi.

Smaller items attesting to Pepi II include faience plaque from various places mentioning both his first and second Sed festival, a calcite vessels attributed to his reign, an Ivory headrest inscribed with his full titles and several objects found at Byblos.

References:

Chronicle of the Pharaohs (The Reign-By-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt)

History of Ancient Egypt, A

Monarchs of the Nile

Oxford History of Ancient Egypt

Revolution In The World

Last week i was posted about what is meaning of revolution

Now i will to share about revolution in the world

How many revolutions have occurred in the history of the world? Are they all violent?
Sometime revolutions have occurred in the world all violent.

In here Jack Goldstone will tell about revolution:

One of the biggest changes in the history of revolutions is the recent shift from revolutions being mainly violent events, marked by terror and civil war, to being the result of non-violent mass uprisings that force rulers from power and usher in new political systems. Since 1996, these non-violent or “color” revolutions, with death tolls in the dozens or hundreds instead of many thousands (or even far more), have become more common than violent ones.

What determines whether revolutions that start as protests continue and succeed peacefully, or turn bloody? It is mainly the reactions of state rulers, who may take a hint and leave, or decide to ratchet up repression and thus trigger a descent into violence. In Libya and Syria, it was the decisions by Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad to turn their troops loose against peaceful protesters that led to the oppositions arming for civil war. Today we are seeing tense confrontations between rulers and peaceful crowds in two capitals: Bangkok (Thailand) and Kiev (Ukraine). Whether these rulers choose to compromise, flee, or fight will determine whether we will add new revolutions to our list, and whether they will go in the column of violent or non-violent ones.

By Jack Goldstone

One of the biggest changes in the history of revolutions is the recent shift from revolutions being mainly violent events, marked by terror and civil war, to being the result of non-violent mass uprisings that force rulers from power and usher in new political systems. Since 1996, these non-violent or “color” revolutions, with death tolls in the dozens or hundreds instead of many thousands (or even far more), have become more common than violent ones.
What determines whether revolutions that start as protests continue and succeed peacefully, or turn bloody? It is mainly the reactions of state rulers, who may take a hint and leave, or decide to ratchet up repression and thus trigger a descent into violence. In Libya and Syria, it was the decisions by Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad to turn their troops loose against peaceful protesters that led to the oppositions arming for civil war. Today we are seeing tense confrontations between rulers and peaceful crowds in two capitals: Bangkok (Thailand) and Kiev (Ukraine). Whether these rulers choose to compromise, flee, or fight will determine whether we will add new revolutions to our list, and whether they will go in the column of violent or non-violent ones.
- See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/02/world-revolutions-timeline-map/#sthash.nTMKwTt5.dpuf

By Jack Goldstone

One of the biggest changes in the history of revolutions is the recent shift from revolutions being mainly violent events, marked by terror and civil war, to being the result of non-violent mass uprisings that force rulers from power and usher in new political systems. Since 1996, these non-violent or “color” revolutions, with death tolls in the dozens or hundreds instead of many thousands (or even far more), have become more common than violent ones.
What determines whether revolutions that start as protests continue and succeed peacefully, or turn bloody? It is mainly the reactions of state rulers, who may take a hint and leave, or decide to ratchet up repression and thus trigger a descent into violence. In Libya and Syria, it was the decisions by Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad to turn their troops loose against peaceful protesters that led to the oppositions arming for civil war. Today we are seeing tense confrontations between rulers and peaceful crowds in two capitals: Bangkok (Thailand) and Kiev (Ukraine). Whether these rulers choose to compromise, flee, or fight will determine whether we will add new revolutions to our list, and whether they will go in the column of violent or non-violent ones.
- See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/02/world-revolutions-timeline-map/#sthash.nTMKwTt5.dpuf

By Jack Goldstone

One of the biggest changes in the history of revolutions is the recent shift from revolutions being mainly violent events, marked by terror and civil war, to being the result of non-violent mass uprisings that force rulers from power and usher in new political systems. Since 1996, these non-violent or “color” revolutions, with death tolls in the dozens or hundreds instead of many thousands (or even far more), have become more common than violent ones.
What determines whether revolutions that start as protests continue and succeed peacefully, or turn bloody? It is mainly the reactions of state rulers, who may take a hint and leave, or decide to ratchet up repression and thus trigger a descent into violence. In Libya and Syria, it was the decisions by Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad to turn their troops loose against peaceful protesters that led to the oppositions arming for civil war. Today we are seeing tense confrontations between rulers and peaceful crowds in two capitals: Bangkok (Thailand) and Kiev (Ukraine). Whether these rulers choose to compromise, flee, or fight will determine whether we will add new revolutions to our list, and whether they will go in the column of violent or non-violent ones.
- See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/02/world-revolutions-timeline-map/#sthash.nTMKwTt5.dpuf

By Jack Goldstone

One of the biggest changes in the history of revolutions is the recent shift from revolutions being mainly violent events, marked by terror and civil war, to being the result of non-violent mass uprisings that force rulers from power and usher in new political systems. Since 1996, these non-violent or “color” revolutions, with death tolls in the dozens or hundreds instead of many thousands (or even far more), have become more common than violent ones.
What determines whether revolutions that start as protests continue and succeed peacefully, or turn bloody? It is mainly the reactions of state rulers, who may take a hint and leave, or decide to ratchet up repression and thus trigger a descent into violence. In Libya and Syria, it was the decisions by Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad to turn their troops loose against peaceful protesters that led to the oppositions arming for civil war. Today we are seeing tense confrontations between rulers and peaceful crowds in two capitals: Bangkok (Thailand) and Kiev (Ukraine). Whether these rulers choose to compromise, flee, or fight will determine whether we will add new revolutions to our list, and whether they will go in the column of violent or non-violent ones.
- See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/02/world-revolutions-timeline-map/#sthash.nTMKwTt5.dpuf

By Jack Goldstone

One of the biggest changes in the history of revolutions is the recent shift from revolutions being mainly violent events, marked by terror and civil war, to being the result of non-violent mass uprisings that force rulers from power and usher in new political systems. Since 1996, these non-violent or “color” revolutions, with death tolls in the dozens or hundreds instead of many thousands (or even far more), have become more common than violent ones.
What determines whether revolutions that start as protests continue and succeed peacefully, or turn bloody? It is mainly the reactions of state rulers, who may take a hint and leave, or decide to ratchet up repression and thus trigger a descent into violence. In Libya and Syria, it was the decisions by Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad to turn their troops loose against peaceful protesters that led to the oppositions arming for civil war. Today we are seeing tense confrontations between rulers and peaceful crowds in two capitals: Bangkok (Thailand) and Kiev (Ukraine). Whether these rulers choose to compromise, flee, or fight will determine whether we will add new revolutions to our list, and whether they will go in the column of violent or non-violent ones.
- See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/02/world-revolutions-timeline-map/#sthash.nTMKwTt5.dpuf

By Jack Goldstone

One of the biggest changes in the history of revolutions is the recent shift from revolutions being mainly violent events, marked by terror and civil war, to being the result of non-violent mass uprisings that force rulers from power and usher in new political systems. Since 1996, these non-violent or “color” revolutions, with death tolls in the dozens or hundreds instead of many thousands (or even far more), have become more common than violent ones.
What determines whether revolutions that start as protests continue and succeed peacefully, or turn bloody? It is mainly the reactions of state rulers, who may take a hint and leave, or decide to ratchet up repression and thus trigger a descent into violence. In Libya and Syria, it was the decisions by Moammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad to turn their troops loose against peaceful protesters that led to the oppositions arming for civil war. Today we are seeing tense confrontations between rulers and peaceful crowds in two capitals: Bangkok (Thailand) and Kiev (Ukraine). Whether these rulers choose to compromise, flee, or fight will determine whether we will add new revolutions to our list, and whether they will go in the column of violent or non-violent ones.
- See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2014/02/world-revolutions-timeline-map/#sthash.nTMKwTt5.dpuf